8924

90

At the same time, V. I. Vernadsky excludes the possibility of a philosophical justification of the origin of life, based on the consideration of the general properties of moving matter or material motion, although “they cannot be considered scientifically rejected”. V. I. Vernadsky writes that “nothing points to their probability”, he refers the “problem of spontaneous generation” to problems like “squaring of the circle”, “trisection of the angle”, “perpetuum mobile”, “philosopher’s stone”. “If spontaneous generation is not a fiction created by our minds, it can only take place outside the realm of known physical and chemical phenomena”, since empirically “no trace of spontaneous generation of life has been found”, “there is no organism... whose genesis would not conform to the Redi principle”, living matter is “sharply separated from nonliving matter. Man is inextricably linked as a whole to the life of all living beings that exist or have ever existed” [5, p. 290-291]. V. I. Vernadsky reminds that the German physiologist W. Pfeffer (1845-1920) called autotrophic the organisms that do not depend on other organisms for their nutrition [5, p. 293], and expresses the hope that humanity also will become free from dependence on other living matter, turning from a socially heterotrophic being to autotrophic one, using activism and primacy of thought. For a “naturalist” this would be “not an action of the free will (whim – M. P.) of man, but a manifestation of a natural process” [5, p. 302].

V. I. Vernadsky suggests that the priority of thought, which S. N. Bulgakov tried to substantiate from religious positions, should be substantiated from the “naturalist’s” position. It turns out that thought cannot be considered from the point of view of the material unity of the world on which Marxism insists, from the point of view of the mutual dependence of matter and motion as inseparable moments of reality in which motion is the universal mode of existence of matter, material substance, an attribute inherent in it which “embraces all the occurring... changes and processes starting from the simple movement and finishing with thinking” [22, p. 391]. V. I. Vernadsky argues “vice versa”, from thinking as the most complex to the simplest, the expression of such an approach is his “noosphere” that turns into the first notion, the reference system for thinking. Thereby he removes the question of the possibility of the humanity’s entry into the second axial time, when a true human and humane essence is realized, which was only allowed by K. Jaspers, wondering “whether the coming development will keep its openness and whether it will result in the creation of a real man”. V. I. Vernadsky removes the question of K. Jaspers as to whether this will happen, because, according to K. Jaspers, how this will happen, “we cannot yet imagine at all”. V. I. Vernadsky proceeded from the reality of the noosphere, which he found in the past, present and future, without reasoning about the transition in the categories of possibility and reality.

Ontologically, matter is the universal basis, the general content of all states of change, gnoseologically, it is objective reality reflected in the sensations, perceptions and concepts of the subject of cognition. Consequently, motion is absolute since the world as a whole is moving matter or material motion, whose individual states are the result of motion of matter or material motion. At the same time, motion is relative since the absolute nature of matter motion does not appear directly, but is realized always and only in concrete, qualitatively and quantitatively defined, locally and historically limited, dependent on concrete conditions, transient and in this sense relative forms of

91

motion. “Nothing is eternal except eternally changing, eternally moving matter, laws of its motion and change”. Any state of matter must be looked upon as a state of its motion and must always be expected to change and move into a different state of motion. According to dialectics, changes are generated by contradictions, the contradictory nature of motion appears in the form of the unity of stability and variability: any change of state is accompanied by preservation, stability, rest of the basis of this change; the very movement, change, development implies relative stability of what is changing; without stability of objects of change, change itself as such is impossible. Movement, change, development are connected with stability, preservation, and do not exist without it; on the contrary, all rest, stability is only an expression of the state of movement and development. Movement and development are sustainable, and sustainability is the stability of movement and development itself. “The world consists not of finished objects, but is the whole of processes, in which objects, seemingly unchangeable, as well as their mental screenshots and concepts are in the uninterrupted process of change” [8, p. 363, 391, 554], and “a philosophical theory of any manifestations of matter must always rest on an adequate reflection of the general properties of motion” [18, p. 5].

On the basis of the alternative nature of the activist type of worldview to the contemplative one, A. V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, one of the first representatives of the Russian cosmism philosophy, also gave the main role to consciousness, “... work of spirit, which abolishes the natural form, i.e. nature”, he stated that nature comes into spirit, that “spiritualization of nature is the creation of man”, that “man himself is this coming of nature into spirit, since man, like Janus, has two faces”. Although, in doing so he refers to the Bible: “You are Gods, it is said in the Scripture” [20, p. 63].

The contemplative organization of the human mind adapts man to the surrounding world and its laws, seeing in them the foundation of human activity. It can agree with dialectics: changing the world, creating new things, man interprets changes as a movement of the “very” world. Man sees himself as a being who acts “on behalf of” the substance of the universe and its regular change. The world is absolute, man is relative, a bearer of the fundamental parameters of the world itself. That is why he cannot be ascribed the traits of a subject, a self-sufficient creator, but must be seen as the life of “substance” which reveals itself in everything. This life also manifests itself in the image of man while his consciousness provides man with the knowledge of the laws of the universe according to which he acts, unlike all other unconscious things and processes. This is how the philosophy of Heraclitus, who reflected on the cosmos and man, presents man’s position in the cosmos and the contemplative organization of the human mind.

Classical natural science can remain committed to a contemplative position insofar as it portrays man as a being who emerges in the process of natural evolution, at its “end”, being the “elite” of natural evolution. So man remains a natural conscious being who could not have been the creator of the nature that preceded him. The contemplative position may also be shared by the objective idealist. Hegel, for example, insisted on the rationality of reconciliation with reality, justifying the need to eliminate the “insubordination of the individual” in relation to the whole, such as the historical

92

epoch, of which it acts as a son, being “within” it. No one is able, writes Hegel, to “jump over his epoch” [7, p. 16, 59].

However, such a position of man in the world carries a great danger for him. Russian cosmologist V. F. Odoevsky, in particular, pointed to it, referring to the characteristics of possible “natural disasters”, natural catastrophes, often dooming man to death. For example, he refers to the case when a comet can destroy the Earth [17, p. 38-48]. In order not to perish, a human being has to proceed to active actions transforming the natural course of events, abandoning “contemplation”. Only in this way the “situation of mortality” can be overcome. Man finds himself faced with the need to control the “world process” by himself, to emerge from subordination to the world process, to demonstrate a new form of organization of the human mind and attitude toward the world. In doing so, man is able to rely on the religious dream of conquering all things. In other words, religion acted as the first prerequisite of “activism” that man discovered in culture. It carries within it the doctrine of creation and the creator, which man accepts as a new pattern of his behavior, as a being created in the image and likeness of God. Religion seems to have technological roots, less rooted in the process of knowing “what is”. This “gluing” of religion and technology is demonstrated in different ways by the philosophical doctrines of A. V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, N. F. Fedorov, S. N. Bulgakov, etc.

From our point of view the activism of religion of the Middle Ages became a prerequisite for the Renaissance and New Age concept of human creativity, making possible the transition from feudalism to capitalism, which widely deployed in the natural space “production” that emerged “from the hiding place” of the world, nurtured a new type of human attitude to the surrounding world and the form of organization of the human mind. Thus, historically and logically, the world became dependent on man. This was expressed by the philosophy of Russian cosmism, which, in the person of its representatives, deifies the technocratic attitude of man to the world, combining science and technology, as they say nowadays, in “technoscience”. N. F. Fedorov, the founder of the philosophy of Russian cosmism, rethinks the concept of “cosmism”, stating that its essence is not the domination of cosmos over man, as with Heraclitus, but the domination of humanity over cosmos, implementing its “common cause” in it. He criticizes science, which deals with knowledge, only contemplating the world, whereas its work consists in its transformation by man; even I. Kant’s position, regarded as the embodiment of contemplation, is criticized. N. F. Fedorov writes that the fantasy of such a transition is “only apparent; the necessity of such a transition is doubtless for a realistic, direct view of the subject for those who will want to take into account all difficulties to create a fully moral society, to correct all vices and evils...”, while to refuse to solve this problem means “to refuse to be human” [17, p. 71-72]. The transition, according to N. F. Fedorov, will either be made by man himself, or it will be executed by God.

As J. Ortega y Gasset showed, an important factor in the expansion of activism was, after religion, idealist philosophy: Leibniz called man a small god, I. Kant proclaimed “I” as the supreme legislator of Nature, and I. Fichte, prone to extremes, declared that “I am everything” [14, p. 81]. In fact, J. Ortega confirms F. Engels’ idea that

93

the rationale of activism on an idealistic basis is the self-growing opposition between spirit and matter, man and nature, soul and body, leading to the idea of the primacy of the spirit. He characterizes contemplation and activism as two great metaphors. They are eponymous with the concepts of contemplation and activism that are at the base of the organization of the human mind in the two greatest historical eras, the Ancient World and the Modern Age, starting already with the Renaissance [14, p. 76]. For ancient man “to be” meant to be among the multitude of other things clustered in the universe. The subject itself is one of the multitude of objects forming the “sea of being” in which the Subject or “I” does not play a major role, since at that time it was taught to live “in harmony with nature” [14, p. 82]. J. Ortega refers to the famous image of “tabula rasa”, the “seal metaphor”, well known in the theory of cognition, which determined the development of philosophy for many centuries [14, p. 78]. The Renaissance [14, p. 79] inverted this relationship between subject and object, while the Modern Age unequivocally gave priority to human creativity. J. Ortega reveals the logic of activism, subjectivity, “passing” contemplation, the emergence literally from nothing and the self-growth of activism, its detachment from contemplation and transformation into a certain independent beginning of thought.

L. Feuerbach demonstrated the alternativeness of these types of organization of human consciousness, as well as the opposite types of worldview, by defending contemplation from “subjectivity”, “creativity” (in the religion of the ancient Jews). This choice corresponds well to his recognition of the primordiality, the substantiality of Nature. His certain solution of the main question of philosophy penetrated “into the territory” of the substantiation of the concept of the worldview proposed by L. Feuerbach. In contrast to Marxism he did not rise to materialism in the field of philosophy of history, to the consideration that human consciousness and his bodily organization are formed under the influence of historically developing labor activity. Therefore, L. Feuerbach viewed sensuality as contemplation. Man remained in his philosophy an extra-historical being, an abstract, contemplative world theorist, not thinking of changing the world, although millions of workers are still not satisfied with the conditions of their lives, their labor activity [12, p. 41]. The workers remain in this condition even now. From this arises the task of revolutionizing the world, of changing this state, and it still retains its relevance. On the contrary, L. Shestov defends the activist type of worldview, in the development of which his idealism played a notable role. N. A. Berdyaev correctly pointed out this “connection” of the worldview concept with a certain solution of the main question of philosophy when he stated: “The cosmos of antiquity and the Middle Ages... disappeared, man found compensation and a standing point, shifting the center of gravity inside man... The idealistic philosophy of the new age is this compensation for the loss of the cosmos, in which man... felt surrounded by higher forces... The power of technology continues the cause of revealing the infinity of spaces and worlds...” [3, p. 154].

In the transition to the activist paradigm, being is removed in the activity, development is transformed into activity, which differs from spontaneous development by goal-setting nature: the goal, means and methods of its implementation are introduced inside it, which turns it into a process fully managed and controlled by man in his own

94

interests. Moreover, the goal is achieved faster than the result in the process of development made by trial and error. The universalization of activity means that the world becomes secondary to the human “cause” which was once generated and determined by the world. According to N. A. Berdyaev, at the beginning of his history man was a slave of nature; and “he began the struggle for his liberation. He created culture, states, nationalities, classes, but became their slave. Then he entered a new period – for mastering irrational social forces: he creates an organized society, advanced technology, but this makes man the instrument of the organization of life and the final mastery of nature. He, man, becomes a slave of organized society and technology, a machine into which society has been transformed and man himself imperceptibly transforms [3, 162]. N. A. Berdyaev saw opponents of the contemplative worldview in the Bolshevik revolution as well, extending to them the philosophy of activism [2, p. 228].

The disclosure of the idea of co-development, coevolution of the development of being and man as applied to history is given by K. Marx in the first volume of “Capital”. Exploring the historical genesis of capitalist accumulation, K. Marx firstly points to the destruction of private property based on one’s own labor, to the “dwarf property” of “many” people, which turns into the giant property of a few exploiters in the course of expropriation of the masses of their means of life and tools of labor. He points to the ruthless vandalism, the filthy, petty, rabid passions with which the followers of the new form, capitalist private property, acted. Individual private property was obtained by the labor of the proprietor, it was based on the fusion of the individual independent worker with his instruments and means of production. Capitalist private property, by contrast, rests on the exploitation of another’s labor force, albeit formally free. As a result, the former “workers” become “proletarians”, and the conditions of their labor become capital. In free competition one capitalist beats many capitalists, there is a centralization of capital.

Under the conditions of the developed capitalist mode of production, the capitalist himself, who exploits many workers, is already subject to expropriation. The expropriation of the expropriators is accomplished by the play of the immanent (objective – M. P.) laws of capitalist production itself: it, as a natural process, generates its own negation, restores “individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era”, that is, on the basis of cooperation and common ownership of land and means of production produced by labor itself. Thus, capitalism, at the highest stage of its development, creates the material means for its own destruction: in its depths “the forces and passions which feel constrained by this mode of production begin to move. It must be destroyed, and it is being destroyed” [10, p. 771-773]. In the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, the founders of Marxism pointed to the proletariat as that subject which represents all humanity, to whose interests these changes correspond, and which is the opponent of the bourgeois class. “The bourgeoisie itself produces its gravedigger, the revolutionary proletariat, its destruction and the victory of the proletariat are equally, in their opinion, inevitable” [12, p. 434-435]. This is how the idea of co-development, coevolution of social being and humanity, their correspondence to each other, is created.

So, a comparative analysis of the philosophical foundations of Russian cosmism,

95

including the concept of noosphere, with the main content of Marxism shows the inadequacy of the interpretation of the Marxist philosophy by contrasting it with the contemplative concept. Marxism is a philosophy of co-development, of coevolution of being and man: possessing the ability to develop and create something new, the material world gives birth to homo sapiens, whose practical activity prolongs being and its development so that their joint development and coevolution of being and man takes place. The consideration of this circumstance leads to more adequate ideas and assessments of Marxism, Russian cosmism and the concept of noosphere of V. I. Vernadsky, which should be taken into account both in scientific research and in the teaching of philosophy.

96

References

1.Alekseev P. V., Panin A. V. Karl Marx. Philosophy of Activism and Contemplative Philosophy // Alekseev P. V., Panin A. V. Philosophy Reading Book. Textbook. 2nd Edition, revised and supplemented. – Moscow: “Prospekt”, 1997. – P. 25-

2.Berdyaev N. A. Self-knowledge (Experience of philosophical autobiography). – Moscow: “Kniga”, 1991. – 446 p.

3.Berdyaev N. A. Man and Machine // Voprosy Filosofii. No. 2, 1989. – P.

142-162.

4.Bulgakov S. N. Svet nevecherny: Contemplations and Speculations. – Moscow: Respublika, 1994. – 415 p.

5.Vernadsky V. I. Humanity Autotrophism // Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. – Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. P. 288-303.

6.Vernadsky V. I. Some Words about the Noosphere // Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. – Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. P. 303-311.

7.Hegel G. W. F. The Philosophy of Right // Hegel. Works. Vol. VII. – Moscow: State Socio-Economic Publishing House, 1934. – P. 16, 59.

8.Gutov E. V. “Russian Cosmism” // Contemporary Dictionary of Philosophy. / Under the general editorship of V. E. Kemerov. – 2nd ed., corr. and suppl. – London, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk. / PANPRINT, 1998. – P. 752-756.

9.Zinoviev A. A. Our Youth Flight // Zinoviev A. A. Bright Future. – Moscow: Astrel, 2008. – P. 257-446.

10.Marx K. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 1. – Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1968. – 908 p.

11.Marx K. Capital. A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 3. Book III // Marx K., Engels F. Selected Works. In 9 volumes. Vol. 9, part 2. – Moscow: Politizdat, 1998.

– P. 348.

12.Marx K., Engels F. Manifesto of the Communist Party // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. Vol. 4 – P. 434-435.

13.Marx K., Engels F. The German Ideology // Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2nd ed. Vol. 3, Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1955. – 827 p.

14.Ortega y Gasset J. Two Great Metaphors // Theory of Metaphor: Collection: Translation from English, French, German, Spanish, Polish. / Introduction and text prepared by N. D. Arutyunova; under the general editorship of N. D. Arutyunova and M. A. Zhurinskaya. – Moscow: Progress, 1990. – 512 p.

15.Ortega y Gasset J. What is Philosophy? – Moscow: Nauka, 1991. – 140 p.

16.Prokhorov M. M. Genesis, Humanism and the Second Axial Time. – Moscow: Russian Humanist Society, 2008. – P. 154-184.

17.Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. – Moscow: Peda- gogika-Press, 1993. – 368 p.

18.Svidersky V. I. Some Questions of the Dialectics of Change and Development. Moscow: “Mysl”, 1965. P. 5.

97

19.Semenova S. G. Russian Cosmism // Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. – Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. – P. 3-33.

20.Sukhovo-Kobylin A. F. A Philosophy of Spirit or Sociology (A Doctrine of the Universe) // Russian Cosmism: Anthology of Philosophical Thought. – Moscow: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. – 120 p.

21.Khabibullina Z. N. Philosophical Paradigm of Russian Cosmism: Social and Philosophical Analysis. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. – Ufa, Bashkir State University Publishing House: 2012. – 32 p.

22.Engels F. Basic Forms of Motion // Marx K. and Engels F. Works: second edition.

Moscow: “Gospolitizdat”, 1961. P. 391.

23.Engels F. The Part Played by Labor in the Transition from Ape to Man // Marx K. and Engels F. Works. Vol. 20, 2nd ed. – Moscow: Politizdat, 1961. – P. 495-

24.Jaspers K. The Origin and Goal of History. 2nd ed. – Moscow: “Respublika”, 1994. – 527 p.

GORDINA E. D.

Nizhny Novgorod State Technical University n.a. R. E. Alekseev, Nizhny Novgorod, Russian Federation

PRODUCTION OF CONSUMER GOODS AT THE ENTERPRISES OF THE GORKY REGION AFTER THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR: SOCIOECONOMIC ASPECT (ON THE MATERIALS OF THE STATE PUBLIC INSTITUTION “STATE SOCIO-POLITICAL ARCHIVE OF THE NIZHNY NOVGOROD REGION”)

The question of the organization of production of consumer goods at Gorky enterprises after the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) has not been the subject of special study by historians and archivists, despite the existence of several major works on the development of the Gorky industrial sector. The focus of scientists’ attention remained predominantly on heavy and defense industry, the intensive development of which was dictated by the strategic tasks of the country’s development and security. Undoubtedly, at the same time, the end of the war put the government before the need to restore normal peaceful life, supplying the population with essential goods. The source base for this article is the documents of the State Socio-Political Archive of the Nizhny Novgorod region, first of all – materials of inspections of enterprises, certificates on their product sales in the post-war period.

The Resolution of the Council of People’s Commissars of the USSR as of 23/10/1945 ordered all Gorky enterprises to switch over to the production of consumer goods after the end of the Great Patriotic War. The range of products to be produced was quite wide [1, s. 10]: wearing apparel, hosiery, leather and felt shoes, leather goods, saddlery, dishes, furniture, gardening equipment, bedding, household appliances, bicycles and much more. Plants of the Pavlovsky, Vachsky and Sosnovsky districts made knives, cutlery, fitting and assembly, woodworking, shoemaking tools, razors, scissors,

98

and saws. The “Krasnaya Etna” Plant sold enameled plates, beds, electric irons, the Vyksa Metallurgical Plant sold beds, forks, shovels, rakes, the Balakhna Furniture Factory sold dining tables, chairs, mattresses, the “Zarya” and Sverdlov Plants sold enameled mugs, bowls, pots, kerosene lamps, plastic buckets and plates [1, s. 19-19]. The product range of the Gorky Glassworks included mirrors, cigarette cases, combs, lamp glasses [1, s. 55], plant No. 397 (Dzerzhinsk) produced enamelware [1, s. 55]. At the “Krasnoye Sormovo” Plant (No. 112), the consumer goods workshop produced spoons, dishes, and beds. The consumer goods at the Stalin Plant were made in workshops No. 38 and 25, partially – in other 13 workshops of the plant [1, s. 58]. The main products were axes and cleavers, tools for the citric gardens of Abkhazia, produced under a special order of the USSR Government. At the Molotov Automobile Plant in shop No. 4 shoes were produced (galoshes, boots, rubber boots, textovinite soles), in the armature and coating shop – enameled and aluminum ware for the needs of canteens, children’s institutions and hospitals of the district. The main consumer goods workshop produced three-wheeled bicycles, barrack beds, cast iron, window and door handles and hinges [1, s. 53].

During the transition to mass production of consumer goods the enterprises had a number of problems, the consequences of which were the failure to realize the plan and the low quality of products. For example, the Stalin Plant produced for five months only 33% of the annual norm of products, of which the fitting and assembly tools – 27.5%, scissors – 13.8%, etc. The folding knives factory produced 12.6% of folding knives and 18.6% of garden knives during the same period. The “Luch” Plant produced 12.6% of table knives and forks [1, s. 13]. This is how the reporting documents describe the organization of production of consumer goods at the Molotov Automobile Plant: “The plant management and the party organization of the plant pay little attention to this shop. The shop (of consumer goods – E. G.) is 5 km away from the plant, in the forest. The road to the shop is in poor condition, and there is no transport. The management of the plant did not understand the reasons for the poor work of the shop and replaced the management of the shop without eliminating the shortcomings of the work”. The plan of production of consumer goods is not realized [1, s. 54].

The local industry of the Gorky region included in 1946 74 district industrial complexes, 1 repair-mechanical plant, 2 enterprises of regional subordination, weightrepair shop [1, s. 61]. The work of light industry enterprises in the region was subjected to sharp criticism in reporting, control and inspection documents, it was stated the emergency condition of the premises of many enterprises, deterioration of equipment, low quality of products, overspending of raw materials, under-performance of production targets by workers. In particular, the Certificate on the work of enterprises of the regional light industry in the first half of 1946 shows that “... in recent time the light industry has worsened its work (...) The felt industry realized the plan of gross output by 79.8%, including the Arzamas factory – by 85.7%, VSF No. 3 – by 69%, VSF No. 2 – only by 17%. VSF No. 2 (...) was reduced to a nearly destroyed condition. Steampower and production equipment was not repaired in time and was working at full wear and tear. The premises were in an emergency condition. Out of 5 machines 2 were running, out of 4 horses 3 fell down. The Arzamas factory works just as badly (...)

99

Planned preventive repair of equipment is not conducted, equipment downtime is the reason for failure to realize the plan. The quality of felts is low. The supply of lowquality felts resulted in complaints for 141.2 thousand rubles (instead of 15.2 for 1945). The norms of the raw material consumption were not complied with. The overspending of the raw materials amounted to 20.9 tons for five months of 1946. (...) The output per worker was 81.8 with reference to plan, the wage fund was overspent by 16% (...)” [1, s. 26-27].

As a way out of the difficult situation it is supposed to re-equip enterprises with the equipment necessary to arrange the production of consumer goods, but even this, despite government subsidies, has proved difficult. “The increase in production capacity for the manufacture of consumer goods is performed extremely slowly (...) The assignments for certain nomenclature of metal consumer goods are not being executed. In 1946, the regional Industrial Cooperation Department and plants of local industry received 5 million rubles and 10 million rubles respectively from the government for those purposes. Actually 1,206 thousand rubles were spent by the plants during the first six months of the year, and only 652 thousand rubles – by the regional Industrial Cooperation Department (...) Out of the 940 thousand rubles, allocated for the re-equip- ment of the Textile factory (should supply yarn to all the artels of Textile Union), only 382 thousand rubles, or 40.6%, were actually spent as of 1.07.1946, which created a clear threat to start-up the factory on due date. Only 28 out of 64 machines transferred by the union-republican plants to the Regional Administration of Local Industry in the first half of 1946 were put into operation. For 5 years 7 out of 9 automatic machines for tooth brush production have been out of order at the bristle-brush factory of the Regional Administration of Light Industry because of the lack of production facilities, while the question of transferring the factory to the unused premises of the Kalinin Leather Factory could not be solved for more than a year. The production and power equipment that has failed is being restored slowly, and the equipment in operation is not used to its full capacity...” [1, s. 28].

One of the most acute problems of the post-war period was the shortage of labor force, especially qualified workers. We read in the reports on the results of inspections of enterprises: “Enterprises with a large shortage of qualified workers are poorly engaged in training personnel and creating material and living conditions for workers. The “Luch” Plant, with a labor shortage of up to 48%, realized its training plan in the first half of the year (...) only by 13.7%. At the Stalin Plant there is a big staff turnover. For five months of 1946 132 people were hired, 129 people were dismissed for the same period” [1, s. 12]. At the Molotov Automobile Plant, the consumer goods shop was staffed by prisoners (out of 229 people, 100 prisoners). “The personnel department of the plant is not interested in this category of workers, while their behavior degrades the rest of the workers and reduces workforce productivity. Certain workers from among prisoners have terrorized the shop recorders, forcing them to show higher output than they actually produced. The personnel department could have used these workers more effectively in other work outside the shop, and staffed the consumer goods shop with more stable personnel” [1, s. 54]. “The City Committees do not help the enterprises well in the return from the collective farms of the districts of the labor force